Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Truth and fact has no value with fake scientists, only the fake data.


Only way to preserve the false worldview.

Why does he want the JD to deny the allegations, simpleton?

Quote:Why does he want the JD to deny the allegations, simpleton?

 

I'll answer the question.

 

Because the FACT that there was wiretapping going on is true and perhaps if some journalists actually did a bit of digging they would find the reason why.  Don't you find it odd that The Justice Department hasn't said a word regarding it?

 

This column explains a lot more, not only in this case, but the case of the current Attorney General rescuing himself recently among other things.  Since I know that you won't read a source other than pMSNBC or somewhere like that, I'll quote part of the article for you.  I'll highlight the relevant parts for you.  This comes from a former federal prosecutor, not from an opinion "journalist".

 

Quote: 

To rehearse briefly, in the weeks prior to June 2016, the FBI did a preliminary investigation, apparently based on concerns about a server at Trump Tower that allegedly had some connection to Russian financial institutions. Even if there were such a connection, it is not a crime to do business with Russian banks — lots of Americans do. It should come as no surprise, then, that the FBI found no impropriety and did not proceed with a criminal investigation
.

 

What is surprising, though, is that the case was not closed down.

 

Instead, the Obama Justice Department decided to pursue the matter as a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In June, it sought the FISA court’s permission to conduct surveillance on a number of Trump associates — and perhaps even Trump himself. It has been reported that Trump was “named” in the application, but it is not publicly known whether he (a) was named as a proposed wiretap target, or (b) was just mentioned in passing in the application.

 

Understand the significance of this
: Only the Justice Department litigates before the FISA court; this was not some rogue investigators; this was a high level of Obama’s Justice Department
— the same institution that, at that very moment, was whitewashing the Clinton e-mail scandal. And when Justice seeks FISA surveillance authority, it is essentially telling that court that there is probable cause to believe that the targets have acted as agents of a foreign power — that’s the only basis for getting a FISA warrant.

 

In this instance, the FISA court apparently found the Obama Justice Department’s presentation to be so weak that it refused to authorize the surveillance
. That is telling, because the FISA court is generally very accommodating of government surveillance requests. Unwilling to take no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department came back to the FISA court in October
— i.e., in the stretch run of the presidential campaign. According to various reports (and mind you, FISA applications are classified, so the leaks are illegal), the October application was much narrower than the earlier one and did not mention Donald Trump. The FISA Court granted this application, and for all we know the investigation is continuing.

 

There are two significant takeaways from this. First, a FISA national-security investigation is not a criminal investigation. It is not a probe to uncover criminal activity; it is a classified effort to discover what a potentially hostile foreign government may be up to on American soil. It does not get an assigned prosecutor because the purpose is not to prove anything publicly in court — indeed, it is a major no-no for the Justice Department to use its FISA authority pretextually, for the real purpose of trying to build a criminal investigation. 


 
 

 

I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article.  Do your own research to refute any of it.

Quote:I'll answer the question.


Because the FACT that there was wiretapping going on is true and perhaps if some journalists actually did a bit of digging they would find the reason why. Don't you find it odd that The Justice Department hasn't said a word regarding it?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445496/special-prosecutor-trump-campaign-russia-jeff-sessions-recuse-ambassador-sergey-kislyak'>This column explains a lot more</a>, not only in this case, but the case of the current Attorney General rescuing himself recently among other things. Since I know that you won't read a source other than pMSNBC or somewhere like that, I'll quote part of the article for you. I'll highlight the relevant parts for you. This comes from a former federal prosecutor, not from an opinion "journalist".



I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article. Do your own research to refute any of it.

So you just confirmed Obama did not order it. You also confirmed whoever did was 100% legal.

Quote:Why does he want the JD to deny the allegations, simpleton?

 

Why haven't they?  It would be simple enough, wouldn't it?

 

Are you so dim that simple logic trips you up so easily?  Or just so brainwashed you simply don't care about the truth?

Quote:Why haven't they? It would be simple enough, wouldn't it?


Are you so dim that simple logic trips you up so easily? Or just so brainwashed you simply don't care about the truth?

Why doesn't Trump Administration declassify the FISA? Be simple enough.

NY Times Contradicts Itself On Wiretap: Its Front Page Headline “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”
 

That was the headline from January 20th, 2017.  Here we are in March and they are trashing their own reports!  Now they are saying there is no evidence of a wiretap.

 

 

http://eheadlines.com/ny-times-contradic...ump-aides/

Quote:So you just confirmed Obama did not order it. You also confirmed whoever did was 100% legal.

 

Wrong.

 

It was the 0bama Justice Department.  You know... the whole "buck stops here" thing?  A FISA investigation is certainly part of the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing).  There is no way that then President 0bama had no knowledge of it.  He had full knowledge of it.

 

100% legal?  Well that's kind of a slippery slope.

Quote:Why doesn't Trump Administration declassify the FISA? Be simple enough.

 

Because it shouldn't.  FISA isn't about criminal investigations, it's about national security.  There is a reason why things are classified.  The bigger story here is why and how is stuff like this getting leaked to the press?

Quote:Because it shouldn't.  FISA isn't about criminal investigations, it's about national security.  There is a reason why things are classified.  The bigger story here is why and how is stuff like this getting leaked to the press?

 

They're so dizzy from spinning they simply can't see anything straight.

 

But if they could, they wouldn't want to anyway.  Truth isn't on their side.

Quote:Because it shouldn't. FISA isn't about criminal investigations, it's about national security. There is a reason why things are classified. The bigger story here is why and how is stuff like this getting leaked to the press?

Well it's a non story right. No national security issues? De classify it and let's move on. All we have now our opinions and hearsay!

Quote:Well it's a non story right. No national security issues? De classify it and let's move on. All we have now our opinions and hearsay!

 

No, you don't declassify it.  The fact of the matter is that investigations such as this should not be known and/or reported on by the press.  The only way that the press and ultimately the public knows anything about it is because classified material was illegally leaked to the press, in this case for political reasons.  That's a felony.  The real story is the leaking of classified materials, not the content of said materials.  The press ignores the breach in security, and instead splashes data publicly that should never have been disclosed in the first place.

 

You even have one liberal "journalist" openly asking for somebody at the IRS to commit a federal felony.  The "journalist" in question could actually himself be guilty of a felony.

Quote:NY Times Contradicts Itself On Wiretap: Its Front Page Headline “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”

 

That was the headline from January 20th, 2017.  Here we are in March and they are trashing their own reports!  Now they are saying there is no evidence of a wiretap.

 

 

http://eheadlines.com/ny-times-contradic...ump-aides/

 

It's difficult to keep track of which side of the story you need to be on if you're an iconic liberal rag like the NYT.  It can change from day to day depending on what the narrative is being spoon fed by the establishment.

Quote:They're so dizzy from spinning they simply can't see anything straight.

 

But if they could, they wouldn't want to anyway.  Truth isn't on their side.

No, it's not, and they are perfectly aware of this.  But, the goal here isn't to get to the truth.  The goal is to damage an administration that doesn't coexist with the establishment in either party, and isn't afraid of the press. The attacks are going to be endless as the left continues to reel from the fact that they have zero power beyond using their operatives still in positions of power to do whatever is necessary to undermine Trump.  

Quote:No, it's not, and they are perfectly aware of this. But, the goal here isn't to get to the truth. The goal is to damage an administration that doesn't coexist with the establishment in either party, and isn't afraid of the press. The attacks are going to be endless as the left continues to reel from the fact that they have zero power beyond using their operatives still in positions of power to do whatever is necessary to undermine Trump.

Does not take much to make him throw a tantrum hissy fit. Personally I enjoy waking up to it daily.

Quote:Does not take much to make him throw a tantrum hissy fit. Personally I enjoy waking up to it daily.

 

Enjoy irrelevance.

Quote:Enjoy irrelevance.

Going to have to be more clear.


There is no such thing as an irrelevant person. Everybody touch somebody and make some kind of an impact.

Now it looks like the NYT completely made up the statement by Comey denying the wiretaps.  The NYT piece cited “senior U.S. officials” as the source for their quickly assembled story to provide push-back against the president’s claims of Obama wiretapping.  There was no actual statement or quote from Director Comey himself. In fact, both the FBI and the DOJ refused to comment.

Quote:Going to have to be more clear.

There is no such thing as an irrelevant person. Everybody touch somebody and make some kind of an impact.

Okay, snowflake. Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel special. Enjoy your participation trophies.

Quote:Now it looks like the NYT completely made up the statement by Comey denying the wiretaps.  The NYT piece cited “senior U.S. officials” as the source for their quickly assembled story to provide push-back against the president’s claims of Obama wiretapping.  There was no actual statement or quote from Director Comey himself. In fact, both the FBI and the DOJ refused to comment.

 

Ouch!


 

Do you have a link?

Quote:Okay, snowflake. Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel special. Enjoy your participation trophies.

Still need to name call huh?

 

Nice.